Verily I say unto thee, that Stone Mirror spake thusly:
On Aug 1, 7:59 pm, Homer <usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, let's be clear. I'm not using a "false name", as you claim. I'm
using a Google ID which I've had for three or four years now, and
which I have never used to claim to someone other than myself.
It's still a false name. Does your passport identify you as "Stone Mirror"?
Yes, I also use a false name (although if you look harder you'll see
that's not /all/ I use). However, in my case the name "Homer" is a
nickname I've had in /real life/ for many years, and my use of a
pseudonym (in addition to my real name) on Usenet is merely a force of
habit stretching back to the days of BBS (i.e. tradition), and has
nothing to do with obfuscating the truth - not that there's a very
interesting truth to obfuscate in the first place. Like most people
online, I am nobody ... until I start criticising Microsoft and their
technology like Mono, that is. Then suddenly I'm apparently very
important indeed, judging by the amount of heckling I get from people
like you.
Since we can't escape our responsibilities, and since I've been
straightforward about who I am, where I work, and what organizations
I'm associated with, as well as the fact that I am not representing a
single one of them, or any combination thereof
That's debatable.
maybe you should be equally candid, "Homer". Who do _you_ work for?
What's _your_ real name? How do we know that _you're_ not
"astroturfing"?
Sorry to disappoint you, but I've been retired for years, therefore I
don't represent /any/ company, in an official capacity or otherwise, and
even when I /was/ working, it was in a segment of the industry quite
parallel to Microsoft's. I've never worked for any company that was a
direct competitor of Microsoft's, AFAIK, so that basically rules out
astroturfing.
Now certainly, I can no more prove this than you can prove you don't
have some hidden agenda, but then /I'm/ not the one attacking Free
Software advocates. In fact I rarely attack /people/ at /all/ ... I
reserve most of my objections for /companies/ ... like Microsoft. I do
take the occasional swipe at those who /support/ Microsoft though, but I
certainly don't labour the point like you do, to the extent of
harassment. And I consider my objections fully justified, given
Microsoft's long and well documented history of corruption.
My contributions to Free Software are, and have always been, entirely
without obligation to any commercial organisation. I've packaged for Red
Hat, but I wasn't on the payroll, or even listed as an employee. My
current affiliation with Fedora is weak to say the least, since I had
grave reservations over their policies for some time. However, I'm very
encouraged by recent events (ref: Mono and Gnote).
In fact, I think the majority of people are intelligent enough to be
able to distinguish when someone is speaking on their own behalf and
when they're speaking on behalf of their employer or an organization.
Well a number of people were fooled by Mike Bayard, in the infamous
Belkin astroturfing case, until some astute observer discovered what was
going on:
http://www.thedailybackground.com/2009/01/16/exclusive-belkins-development-rep-is-hiring-people-to-write-fake-positive-amazon-reviews/
Presumably you think Arlen Parsa, the individual who exposed this
corruption, is guilty of "threats and intimidation", since he reported
this astroturfer to both Amazon and Belkin.
As someone who occasionally _does_ act as a spokesperson for my
employer and for LiMo (but not now), I understand the distinction
and make it clear when I'm doing so. You seem determined to conflate
these things in a transparent attempt to try to silence me through a
variety of oblique threats.
Again, you perceive accountability as a "threat".
And I've already made it quite clear I have no interest in reporting
you, since (according to you, at least) all parties are fully aware of
the situation. I merely expressed my support for anyone who might be
motivated to do so, much like I support Arlen Parsa's actions for
similar reasons.
You freedom-lovers
Your contempt for freedom is palpable.
don't seem to value the freedom of speech of anyone but yourselves.
Funny Thing.
The "freedom" to do harm is not a right, it's an abuse.
Concerned enough to continue this conversation, apparently.
Are you begging me to leave you alone, Homer...?
On the contrary, it's you who seems to be begging me for my opinion.
How strange that you should be so obsessed with the opinion of a nobody
whose opinion "doesn't matter" to you.
